Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination, (Dec 12, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent decisions involving disability discrimination claims of interest to the labor and employment law community.

N.D. Ill.: Allegations of disability discrimination, retaliation were sufficient for pleading stage. A long-tenured Black flight attendant alleged that, after informing his employer of cataracts and scheduled surgery, supported by medical documentation, he was subjected to escalating discipline, including an “operational delay” write-up, performance issue write-ups, final warnings, and finally, termination. This was all allegedly done while he was “qualified for his flight attendant position and performed satisfactorily.” He claimed these actions were motivated by his disability and retaliatory in response to his filing grievances and reporting misconduct. The employee sued the airline, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act; race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII; and age discrimination under the ADEA. The airline moved to dismiss the two Rehabilitation Act counts under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the employee failed to allege that he “was involved in a program that received federal financial assistance.” The court held that, at the pleading stage, the employee need not establish all prima facie elements but must provide factual allegations showing “substantive plausibility.” Because the complaint alleged the airline “receives federal funding through the Department of Transportation’s Essential Air Service program, subjecting it to the Rehabilitation Act,” the court found the allegations sufficient and denied the motion to dismiss (Hudson v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-08327 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2025)).

N.D. Iowa: Fired employee failed to show disability or age bias, had documented performance issues. An elevator mechanic with three decades of experience was hired from a union bench at age 53 and later terminated after repeated concerns about his job performance and physical limitations. The employer issued verbal and written warnings citing delays in completing tasks, lack of initiative, and errors on projects, then reassigned the mechanic to a new site where his coworker reported safety concerns and inability to perform essential duties requiring ladder access and overhead assembly. Following internal discussions, management discharged the mechanic and documented its decision in a termination letter referencing prior warnings and physical limitations impacting productivity. The mechanic sued the company alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, and for age discrimination, alleging he was regarded as disabled due to obesity and targeted because of age. On the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that “obesity alone is not an impairment” absent evidence of an underlying physiological disorder, found no proof the employer perceived such an impairment, and noted the absence of age-related comments or disparate treatment, particularly where the permanent replacement was older than the discharged employee. Because the record showed legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination and no evidence of pretext, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice (Wilson v. TK Elevators Corp., No. C24-4041-LTS-MAR (N.D. Iowa Nov. 26, 2025)).

D. Mass.: Poor interview performance and lack of evidence doom fire captain’s discrimination claims. A long-serving captain in a city’s fire department with 23 years of experience and a 50 percent VA disability rating sued the city and its fire commissioner, alleging that the city and commissioner bypassed him for promotion to district fire chief because of his disability and age, in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADEA. After the City authorized five promotions in late 2019, the captain—ranked third on the civil service list due to his exam score and disabled veteran status—interviewed before a panel that included the commissioner. He received the lowest score of all candidates and was passed over in favor of three individuals who ranked lower on the Civil Service list. The commissioner cited the captain’s limited continuing education, his failure to learn from a prior fire scene incident, and his lack of vision for departmental improvement as reasons for the bypass. The captain filed suit, and the city moved for summary judgment. The court found that, although the captain established a prima facie case, the city articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons supported by consistent panel evaluations. The captain offered only “[u]nsupported allegations and speculation” to show pretext, which was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court granted summary judgment on all federal claims and remanded the remaining state law claims to state court (Grenier v. City of Springfield, No. 3:23-cv-30011-KAR (D. Mass. Nov. 25, 2025)).

D. Minn.: Requested remote-work accommodations would affect essential job functions. An IT supervisor diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and ADHD worked for a municipality beginning in 2019. The employee had COVID-19 safety concerns and interpersonal conflicts with his director, and repeatedly sought accommodations—including a fully remote schedule, virtual-only meetings, and additional leave—citing heightened anxiety. The city partially granted accommodations, later placed him on continuous FMLA leave when he could “not presently able to perform the essential functions of [his] position” by being on-site, and ultimately deemed him resigned under the City’s Civil Service Rules after he failed to return following exhaustion of FMLA entitlement. The employee sued the city, his supervisor, the city’s chief information officer, and the city’s HR manager, alleging ADA discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, improper medical inquiries, FMLA interference and retaliation, Section 1983 due process violations, and state-law violations. The municipality and three officials moved to dismiss. The court held that the ADA does not impose individual liability, the improper medical inquiry claim was unexhausted, and the remaining federal claims were implausible because the requested accommodations—full remote work and avoidance of in-person supervision—were unreasonable as they would remove essential job duties. The court also found no causal link for retaliation and no denial of FMLA rights, and it also dismissed the Section 1983 claim. Having dismissed all federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (Shopek v. City of Minneapolis, No. 24-cv-4118 (LMP/EMB) (D. Minn. Dec. 1, 2025)).

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation EmployeeLeave Covid19 PublicEmployees Procedure